Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary first raised Michael Shields's case with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister on 21 September 2005, and has since registered his continued interest on 18 October and 8 December. He also raised Michael Shields's case with the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Europe Minister on 16 December. My right honourable friend the Minister for Europe took the opportunity of a visit to Sofia to raise the case with the Bulgarian Foreign Minister on 28 April. In addition, our embassy continues to make representations in order to facilitate visits to Michael. Indeed, this morning, an application was made to the prison governor on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the last time a Labour government faced a serious and prolonged drought it appointed a Minister with specific responsibility to deal with the matter, which was extremely successful. However, the Government have already repeated that action this time and, although there has been some rain, the drought persists. What further discussions—particularly with Thames Water—will the Government have to deal with the situation in the event that the drought persists for a serious period into the future?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	This report concerns the Lord Speaker's salary and pension. On 31 January this year, the House approved the report of the second Select Committee on the Speakership. In paragraph 54 of the report, the committee recommended that the Senior Salaries Review Body should be invited to propose a salary and pension arrangement for the Lord Speaker which,
	"would be appropriate vis-à-vis those of the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees".
	The Senior Salaries Review Body considered the report of the Speakership Committee and the Hansard of the debate on it, as well as its previous recommendations concerning parliamentary salaries. It has proposed the following provisional arrangements, which it may revise during its next full review of parliamentary pay and allowances due in 2007 or after further reform of this House. First, it proposed an annual salary of £101,668, subject to annual uprating on 1 April, in line with the average movement of the mid-points of the senior Civil Service pay bands. This would give the Lord Speaker the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords. Secondly, it proposed a pension in accordance with the normal pension scheme provisions for Ministers, MPs and the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees in this House. In addition, the House Committee considered that the Lord Speaker should be entitled to claim the same expenses as other paid office holders in the House of Lords.
	In the past, this House has accepted the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body on expenses and salaries for Members. Several Members of the House Committee were concerned about the possible consequences of cherry picking between SSRB recommendations. However, as today's Order Paper shows, not every Member of the House Committee agreed with the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations in this case. Nevertheless, the committee recognised that the final decision rests with your Lordships.
	Finally, it may be helpful to say a word about the procedure to be followed on the three amendments tabled to my Motion. In a moment, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will move his Amendment No. 1, and the debate will then proceed in accordance with the outline speakers' list. A decision will then be taken on Amendment No. 1. If Amendment No. 1 is agreed to, it will still be possible for Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 to be moved, but the Deputy Speaker will propose them in a different form so as to leave out the words last inserted. If Amendment No. 2 is agreed to, it would replace Amendment No. 1. Similarly, if either Amendment No. 1 or Amendment No. 2—or both—are agreed to, and Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, Amendment No. 3 would replace any earlier amendments.
	Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 152).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Lord Barnett: My Lords, the amendment refers to a figure of £79,382, but including the allowances that are normally paid and are agreed in this case, the total would be £115,000, plus the pensions referred to. I should make it clear that I was one of the two Members of the House Committee who disagreed with the recommendations that have been put before your Lordships.
	The committee's case and, as I understand it, the case of those who voted for it, as the Lord Chairman said, is that we never normally oppose the Senior Salaries Review Body's recommendations. Traditionally, that is absolutely true and I accept that the SSRB is usually very good in its recommendations. It carries out full research, checking nationally and internationally whether the figure recommended is appropriate. But in this case it was impossible to do that. This is a unique job; there is no other comparison to be made. So the SSRB made no case but simply repeated that the salary should be equivalent to that of a Cabinet Minister in the House of Lords. That is a very strange recommendation, if I may say so. The report of the Senior Salaries Review Body was, as the Lord Chairman said, made on the basis of debates in your Lordships' House and of the Select Committee report. In other words, your Lordships are as well informed and able to make a decision on this as the SSRB.
	The SSRB's recommendation should be looked at from a different standpoint. Whatever disagreements there may be about the whole question of the Speakership and the Speaker's salary, there is one point on which your Lordships are in unanimous agreement: we will remain a self-regulating House. In those circumstances, the position of the Speaker cannot be compared with a Speaker anywhere else, certainly not down the Corridor; the Speaker in the Commons has some real powers. The Speaker we would have, on the recommendations made and agreed by your Lordships, would be able to offer advice, which could be rejected by your Lordships. He or she would not even be able to give advice on the important time of Question Time—that has been specifically ruled out by your Lordships.
	So we are told that the recommendation is that new Speaker should sit up to three hours a day on the Woolsack or in the Chair. I accept that that is quite a burden, having listened from time to time to hours of debate in your Lordships' House, but to say that it warrants a Cabinet Minister's salary cannot be serious. It is ludicrous to suggest such a salary for that kind of job. It is not a serious job in that sense. It should have the dignity that the House wants, but does not involve a Cabinet Minister's responsibility.
	If one rejects the idea of a Cabinet Minister's salary, one has to consider what salary should be paid for a job that would have some dignity and which we would care about. My amendment suggests that the salary should be the same as that of the Chairman of Committees, which would bring it to a total—including agreed allowances—of £115,039. Actually, the Chairman of Committees would continue to do a much bigger job in your Lordships' House. He would continue to chair many Select Committees and the new Speaker would chair only the House Committee. That being said, I recognise that many believe that my proposal puts too high a figure for the new Lord Speaker and I accept that. It is not possible to define an ideal figure in the circumstances because the job is unique. It should have some dignity attached to it, but the Select Committee on the Speakership recommended—and the SSRB also made the recommendation—that the Lord Speaker's salary should be based on the salary of a Cabinet Minister. That recommendation was made on page 15 of the first report of the Select Committee. The committee used only one word to justify the decision—it was not mentioned in our previous debates. It said that a Cabinet Minister's salary would be "appropriate". I hope that your Lordships will accept that it is anything but appropriate.
	My proposal is not ideal but, given that the salary proposed is excessive, as I hope your Lordships will accept, it is a reasonable compromise which would provide the dignity that is required. I hope that there will not be any Dutch auction here because the matter is too serious. I am suggesting a serious compromise figure and I hope that that figure will be accepted by your Lordships. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, at end to insert "except that the annual salary of the Lord Speaker should be the same as the annual salary of the Chairman of Committees (£79,382 at 1 April 2005)".—(Lord Barnett.)

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I feel very much the same as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, at least in principle. I had the honour to serve on the Speakership Select Committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and it is true that we referred the question of salary in our final report to the SSRB. It is the SSRB's recommendation before your Lordships today, endorsed by the House Committee.
	Like every noble Lord, I have the greatest admiration for the SSRB. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, it faced some difficulty in this regard because the post that we have created is like no other. But it is a very modest post. The duties attached to our new Speaker will be very light indeed. It is a matter of opinion whether three hours on the Woolsack each day will be strenuous or otherwise, but the duties overall will not be very great. They will be largely of a representational nature and no less welcome for that. However, perhaps the SSRB failed to realise how modest the appointment actually is. Therefore I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnett is right to suggest that the salary ought to be significantly less than the one proposed.
	I know there are noble Lords who believe that we should never overturn a proposal from the SSRB. I really do not agree. Although we regard its proposals with the greatest care and almost always accept them, it is not the case that we have never overturned one of its recommendations. I think there are one or two occasions in the past when we have chosen to do that, so there is no principle at stake when we seek to do on this occasion.
	I believe there is widespread agreement that the salary proposed is too great. The question before your Lordships is by how much it should be reduced below the figure from the SSRB proposed by the House Committee. Speaking for myself, I would prefer an even lower figure than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. My noble friend Lord Ferrers, who will speak in a moment, has an even lower figure in mind. However, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is certainly moving along the right lines and I shall support him in the Lobbies.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall speak to my amendment. Like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I think the salary recommended by the House Committee of £101,668 is excessive by all and any standards. To it are added expenses of about £34,000. The committee proposes that the salary for the new Lord Speaker should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, says, the same as that of a Cabinet Minister in the Lords. But why? The two offices are not remotely comparable. A Cabinet Minister carries heavy responsibilities; the Lord Speaker will have virtually none. And the proposed figures are only the start. Other expenses will be paid to the Lord Speaker, and a pension, all of which will be increased annually.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, on his eagle eye, and on proposing a lower figure, but for an ex-Chief Secretary of the Treasury he is remarkably generous. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne's figure is getting nearer the mark. The figure of £29,946 proposed by my amendment is the payment the present Lord Chancellor is entitled to receive for performing his duties as Speaker of the House of Lords, and I suggest that that should be the figure the new incumbent should also get.
	I sometimes think that we have completely forgotten where we are coming from. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he does not want to spend one and a half hours per week performing his duties as Speaker of your Lordships' House, for which is entitled to receive £29,946. He said that he wants to spend his time doing other things, but he has never said what. Most people resign if they do not like the job they are doing. Not so the noble and learned Lord. Not only does he not want to do the job himself, but he ensures that no other Lord Chancellor will do it either—a fundamental change in the constitution for which the noble and learned Lord is wholly responsible. Yet he prides himself on being Secretary of State for the Constitution, and presumably its guardian.
	So we are forced into creating a new animal: a Lord Speaker. We all know that it is not going to be an improvement on what we have. I do not think that there is one person in your Lordships' House or elsewhere who thinks that our affairs will be better looked after under the new arrangements than they are at present. Then, having reluctantly accepted that we have to find a new person to fill the void created by the noble and learned Lord, we have to find something for him to do. It is unbelievable. People have hunted around trying to find jobs for the new Speaker to do. Will he be like a Commons Speaker? No. Will he deal with points of order? No. Will he control the House? Oh no. Will he tell obdurate noble Lords to sit down? No. What will he do? The answer is: mighty little, except sit, and be entertained by Liverpool City Council or whatever as some kind of House of Lords ambassador. That is a curious and unnecessary innovation.
	If ever there was an example of deliberately creating a job, it is that of creating a new Lord Speaker for your Lordships' House. He is not wanted—there is nothing for him to do—but he is to be paid £135,000, including salary and expenses. It is not surprising that there are a lot of eager noble Lords queuing up with their eyes sparkling hoping to be successful in the Lord Speaker jackpot. It is absurd. It will do the House no good and it will do the country no good. I suggest to your Lordships that it is a waste of money. When some of your Lordships say—largely tongue in cheek, I am bound to say—that your Lordships should be an elected or partially elected Chamber, others will say that if a non-elected Chamber; and not all of us are unelected, can pay to one of its non-elected members a salary of that size perhaps it would be better if it were elected, but of course it would be worse.
	One of the current buzzphrases seems to be "value for money", but I question whether noble Lords are providing value for money in the way in which they used to. When the set-piece debates were on Wednesday and the House sat at three o'clock on Thursday, the Chamber was full for the set-piece debates and it was full on Thursdays. Now hardly anyone attends the set-piece debates and the House is virtually empty at three o'clock on Thursdays. Everyone has buzzed off home. As a Lord-in-Waiting in the 1960s I remember frequently asking permission from the father of my noble friend Lord Goschen—I do not know whether he is in his place; perhaps he is not—who was then the Deputy Chief Whip, whether I could leave at a quarter to seven on a Thursday evening in order to catch a 7.30 train home. He usually graciously agreed. The daily attendance allowance then was £4/14s/6d. There were one or two life Peers then too. But now, together with an overnight allowance, it is £231, but we cannot be bothered to come to the House on a Thursday afternoon. I do not know whether that is value for money.
	Now we have this other huge expenditure. In 1997—Her Majesty's Government always like to compare what happens now with 1997—that part of the Lord Chancellor's salary that referred to his being Speaker was £18,855 and the Lord Chancellors of the day carried out their office with dignity. Now, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is entitled to £29,946, he says that he does not want to do the job. Instead, the public purse is to pay out £135,000 per annum for someone else to do it in his place. In the famous words of the late Lord Hailsham, I think that we have all gone stark, staring bonkers. It is certainly not value for money and it is certainly not in the public interest.
	The noble and learned Lord the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs could do worse than look at what has happened to that part of the constitution which is carried on in this House since 1997 and to realise that under the aura and the influence of this Government it has not been an improvement. This is a pathetic and sorry saga. I suggest to your Lordships that if we are to have this constitutional upheaval the new Lord Speaker should receive the same salary as that to which the present Lord Chancellor is entitled.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this is the latest in a series of debates on the role of the Lord Speaker and it is the latest in a series of debates putting into effect the implications of the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which has been agreed by the House and which I have no intention of seeking to reopen or to overturn.
	This, of all matters, is a House matter. For my Benches, it will be an entirely free vote. But some of the confusion that is sometimes raised on the subject is because nowhere does there exist a single document that lays out all the changes that were implied by the Lloyd committee report. There are changes to procedure, staff, pay, pensions, accommodation and costume—for those who are interested in such matters. At least three committees of the House, with different memberships, have been involved on all those different aspects, yet nowhere can one find a comprehensive, single document to explain what all the changes will be—at least, not until they have all been debated and agreed in a piecemeal fashion. That it is one of the reasons why I, a member of the House Committee, supported the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in the representations he made then, and why I shall be supporting him this afternoon if he presses the matter to a Division.
	I was also much taken by the arguments made by my noble friends Lord Trefgarne and Lord Ferrers. I have one question to put my noble friend Lord Ferrers before I decide whether to support him. Is the salary that he is recommending a salary in itself or is it a salary on top of the normal expenses paid to Back-Benchers? That could make a substantial difference and would demonstrate that the Lord Speaker was being treated in the same way as most Members of this House with an extra amount on top. No doubt he will find an opportunity to clarify that in due course.
	I disagree with those who say that by supporting the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, we are attacking the SSRB. It is true that we normally accept the conclusions of the SSRB; that is because the SSRB undertakes an exhaustive study of what is required. On this occasion, it took no evidence from anyone—I am not aware that it discussed the salary with any Member of this House—and had no idea on which basis to proceed, which was why it fell back on the first report of the Lloyd committee. So on this occasion, I have no difficulty whatever in disagreeing with the recommendation of the SSRB.
	Some noble Lords have talked about the prestige of the Speaker. I yield to no one in my desire for the Lord Speaker to receive the highest prestige, respect, status and dignity possible. The Speaker will be an important representative of this House. But prestige does not rely on big bucks. Indeed, that dignity could well be reduced by overpaying someone to sit on the Woolsack and do the job that has been recommended.
	I cannot see that the role of Speaker equates at all to that of a Cabinet Minister in this House. They are clearly different jobs with different roles and responsibilities. The job of the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, carries far greater prestige and authority than that of the Lord Speaker.
	The Lord Chairman of Committees, in his introduction, said that in due course there will be a review of the said salary. I have never heard of a salary being reviewed downwards, so I expect that that will not happen. So should we not start off with a slightly lower salary and if, after a year or two, that is deemed to be insufficient, the review can take care of that?
	I will be voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I will do so gladly and I urge the House to do the same.

Lord McNally: We are perfectly entitled to do so. Well we are putting two Whips in. Two Whips will spontaneously go in. As we have seen, much of the debate has in fact—

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my point was that the noble Lord said that the reason that this was reviewable was because the job was unique. As I pointed out, the Committee knew that the job was unique when they put it to the SSRB in the first place.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	It is understood that the Bill is being taken through the House at some speed mainly because it is important to give momentum to the political process in Northern Ireland. We cannot allow matters to drift indefinitely. I acknowledge, on behalf of the Government, that this presents difficulties to your Lordships. In recognition of this, we have already had several meetings with those who are interested. We are happy to help resolve any further doubts before next Monday. If any noble Lords wish to seek advice on possible amendments, we would be happy to give such help as we can.
	This is a brief Bill, with two substantive clauses and three schedules. It is largely temporary in effect. The Assembly, in the form it is set up in this Bill, will in any event not sit beyond 24 November. The Bill opens the way for the Assembly to meet on 15 May, the first time in nearly four years. The key task is to select a new executive, opening the way to devolution in Northern Ireland. The 24 November is the deadline in the Bill to restore devolution. It is fixed and unchangeable. We need politicians to take responsibility, engage with each other and show leadership to their communities. The Government will help, but there are limits to what we can do. The biggest obstacle is lack of trust on both sides.
	For unionists to be willing to share power with republicans, they can reasonably ask to be confident that republicans have turned completely away from paramilitary activity and will not accept, either overtly or with a nod and a wink, criminal activity.
	Unionists can properly also ask to know, before criminal justice and policing powers are devolved, that support for the criminal justice system and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is absolutely unequivocal—but that concerns the second phase of devolution, which is not for 24 November. However, republicans and nationalists also have understandable needs. They want to know that unionists are serious about sharing power with them and power-sharing must not be an ever-receding target. Reasonable-sounding arguments for testing things a little further before going into government can always be found by Members of this House, the other place and politicians in Northern Ireland. But republicanism has come an enormous distance. It has moved on massively since the IRA statement of July last year and the act of decommissioning later that year in September.
	The 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission was published last week. It confirms how far republicanism has come. The IMC had already made it clear that the IRA was no longer a terrorist threat. The new report says:
	"It remains our absolutely clear view that the PIRA leadership has committed itself to following a peaceful path. It is working to bring the whole organisation fully along with it . . . We are not aware of current terrorist, paramilitary or violent activity sanctioned by the leadership. We have no indications in the last three months of training, engineering activity, recent recruitment or targeting for the purposes of attack".
	On criminality, which rightly causes a great deal of concern, the report says that the Provisional IRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members. It welcomes Gerry Adams' comments that anybody involved in criminality should face the full rigours of the law. We all have views on the past conduct of the republican movement and all is not yet perfect, but we have to acknowledge that there has been, and continues to be, momentous progress. Representatives of unionist parties—including those from the Democratic Unionist Party, whose members I look forward to welcoming very soon in your Lordships' House—have acknowledged that. That is a very good sign.
	That acknowledgment now needs to be built on, through engagement and dialogue. You do not have to agree with someone about everything—you do not have to agree about anything—to be willing to talk to them. The Assembly is the place for dialogue. There is a strong record of people working together. The Assembly proved, when it met under devolution, that people could work seriously together, despite widely different outlooks. There is ample opportunity between 15 May and 24 November for them to take the helm of the Northern Ireland political process.
	I now turn to the Bill. The framework is a simple one. Clause 1 brings back the Members of the Assembly in order to prepare for restoration of devolved government—which means selecting an executive. Schedule 1 sets out how the Assembly will operate in this phase of its work. As I have said, the Bill sets a limit on achieving devolution of 24 November. Under Clause 2, if an executive has been selected by then, we move immediately into devolution, with Assembly elections postponed until May 2008. Schedule 2 to the Bill is concerned with the implementation of this phase—the success phase.
	If the Assembly does not succeed, we have to move forward by other means and Schedule 3 comes into effect. The Assembly election scheduled for May 2007 will be postponed until a point at which it can fulfil its proper role. In more detail, the Assembly will meet under the Bill without its formal powers. The direct rule arrangements will continue in this phase.
	The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to refer to the Assembly the selection, first, of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister. If that is successful, he will use the running of the d'Hondt process to fill the other ministerial posts in the executive. He can also refer other matters to the Assembly as he thinks fit.
	This is a similar process to that which was followed when the Assembly was first elected in 1998. The Secretary of State can make directions about procedure, including the appointment of the presiding officer. He has already announced that he intends to appoint Mrs Eileen Bell as presiding officer. She has seen a good deal of Northern Ireland politics, and is well liked among the parties. I agree that the provisions of Schedule 1 appear highly directive, if indeed not dictatorial, but the Assembly has one key task, which is to select an executive. Selection of a presiding officer and the making of standing orders, both of which in ordinary circumstances require the Assembly to operate by cross-community support, could cause prolonged hang-ups, and we do not want the Assembly distracted from its main function by procedural wrangling.
	We want to work by consensus, and we are consulting closely with the presiding officer and the political parties about the way the Assembly will operate and its standing orders, an illustrative draft of which we have sent to the parties and placed in the Printed Paper Office. We will welcome all comments, including any from your Lordships. Meetings have been taking place with the parties, both at the end of this week as this Bill passed through the other place and this week, discussing these issues and points of detail about the way the Assembly will operate.
	We are ready to refer to the Assembly a range of matters that will feature among the key concerns of a devolved administration. These might include education reform, local government reform, water charges, rate rises or the rating system. As we have said, we would take account of the Assembly's views on such matters, especially if they had cross-community support.
	We have been asked to undertake that we would always act on views expressed by the Assembly or hold matters back pending devolution. As the Government, we are accountable to Westminster for the good government of Northern Ireland pending the restoration of devolution. We cannot and will not hand over control to a body without responsibilities. They can take the responsibilities any time they want; we are not stopping them. All they have to do is elect the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, run d'Hondt and set up an executive, and they can have the responsibilities by the end of this month if they so choose. But until they have those responsibilities it would be quite wrong for us to hand over the powers. As direct rule Ministers we have to be free to put forward proposals that we believe are in the public interest, but a cross-community view from the Assembly would have to be taken seriously by Ministers and Parliament. I repeat, the sooner devolution is restored, the sooner the Assembly will have complete authority over these issues.
	Work on legislation is important, but the key purpose of the Assembly under this Bill is to elect a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister and fill the other ministerial posts. If that happens, the Bill requires the Secretary of State to make an order restoring devolved government. The new executive would take office and all the Assembly's powers and responsibilities would be restored. The direct rule powers would come to an end; indeed, there would be repeal from the statue book.
	If restoration is achieved, we have provided that the Assembly's life should be prolonged for a year beyond May 2007, when an election was due. We thought carefully about proposing that, because it is unusual, and one does not want to interfere in the democratic process. It is a difficult proposition to put forward. We think the alternatives are worse. After years of effort to bring the parties sufficiently close together to work in an executive—and we can get that up and running between 15 May and 24 November—we really cannot sentence the members who take those responsibilities to an immediate attack of election fever when they have to go and fight an election next May. We thought that would be counterproductive and poisonous to the spirit of working together. If we are serious about devolution, we cannot do that.
	Your Lordships will know that some parties are seeking changes to the arrangements in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 under which devolution would operate. That is quite legitimate, and indeed we have put forward some such changes in the comprehensive proposals of December 2004. We hope the parties in the Assembly will sort these issues out. As a government, we will do all we can to help.
	I want to be clear about a point of detail in Schedule 2, because there were misapprehensions in the other place, if anyone reads the debate. I have to say that I read Thursday's debate from start to finish: the first time I have read a full debate from the other place in donkey's years. I am much reinforced that it is simply true—I repeat that it is true—that the quality of debate in your Lordships' House is far superior to that in the other place. I speak as a supporter of the other place, but heaven above, I had to go through that word for word. I was in Northern Ireland on Thursday so I was not able to tune into any of the debate.
	I want to be clear about the misapprehension. Once the devolved institutions are restored, and I have said that they can be by the end of this month if they so choose, they will be free to act as they wish within the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That means that the Assembly, along with the executive, can repeal or change any of the things that we have done as direct rule Ministers. There are provisions in paragraph (3) of Schedule 2 that prevent the bottom dropping out of the laws passed under devolution, but they will not stop the Assembly from overturning the direct rule legislation. If the members want, for example, to spend more money in a certain area and legislative change is required for that, they can do it. However, because they have the responsibility, they will have to make the cuts elsewhere to fund the extra spending. That is the point; they can do it if they want to. In other words, they are not prevented from doing that; that is not the case with some of the misapprehensions raised in the other place.
	When an Order in Council has gone through, it is like an Act of Parliament. I know that there are differences, but that can be amended, repealed or overturned—it is in the Assembly's prerogative to do so—and carry on the business of government in Northern Ireland. So there is not any problem about that whatever. However, this is the success scenario towards which we are working. I repeat what I have said before and what other Ministers have said. The sooner they get back to exercise power the better, because the longer direct rule lasts the faster we will push the reform programme. We make that absolutely clear. There is a massive reform programme on in Northern Ireland at the moment and we will push it faster the longer we are there.
	If we do not obtain an executive by 24 November, the Bill is clear and unconditional. The May 2007 elections will not take place, the Assembly Members will go home and from that date they will receive no pay or allowances. This is not covered in the Bill and does not need to be, because there are existing powers on the subject. It would not be right to pay Members of the Assembly any further allowances after three and a half years on generous pay without having to carry out their role. Many Members might understand and some of the MLAs might say that it is not their fault, but the public will not accept their receiving golden handshakes. This is not a threat and they will not see it as such; it is a reality and it is reasonable. It is a recognition of political reality.
	If the process failed by 24 November as a government we would then take forward energetically the running of Northern Ireland. It is not something that we look forward to. All our efforts are aimed towards restoring devolution. Of course an Assembly and an executive could at some future date be restored, but it would not be on anyone's agenda for quite a while. The Bill enables an Assembly election to be called later subject to an affirmative vote here at Westminster. We do not want things to come to this. The Assembly was a success in the short period that it worked. It set up an enormous amount of work and set itself quite an agenda, which is being left to direct rule Ministers to continue. But it can do that again and it can have the joy of finishing off some of the work that it set in train all those years ago. If the Members are back they can do that, and if they are not we will finish it for them. We believe that the Bill offers the most promising framework in which success and devolution in Northern Ireland can happen. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for setting out in his usual clear and forthright manner the details of this short Bill and the context in which the Government are introducing it.
	Let me begin by making it quite clear that the Opposition support the Bill. We have had our differences with the Government over the years on their conduct of certain aspects of the peace process in Northern Ireland but today we share their objectives in wishing this initiative through to a successful conclusion.
	Devolution has now been suspended since October 2002—itself the fourth suspension since 1999. Yet the Assembly has continued to cost the taxpayer more than £80 million per annum simply to maintain it. As the Government have made clear, it is not sustainable to go on like this—paying Assembly Members' salaries for a job of work that they are no longer carrying out. That is the reality.
	So, like the Government and all the main parties in Northern Ireland, we want to see a democratically accountable devolved government functioning in Northern Ireland. We want to see decisions over the issues that affect people's daily lives taken by locally elected politicians in the Assembly rather than through the unsatisfactory procedures of direct rule that we struggle with here at Westminster. We want to see politicians from both the main traditions working together for the good of all the people of Northern Ireland.
	In all of this we are at one with the Government. We look forward to the Assembly's recall on 15 May, and, if it proves impossible to elect an executive within six weeks—the most likely scenario—I hope that one can be formed by 24 November. But let us not delude ourselves about the obstacles that still have to be overcome. Judging by the statements of the Prime Minister and Bertie Ahern, they have come to the conclusion that the only remaining obstacle to devolution is the Democratic Unionist Party's unwillingness to share power with Sinn Fein. In other words, they seem satisfied that Sinn Fein has now taken all the steps required of it to warrant, under its mandate, a place in the Government of Northern Ireland.
	I have to say to the Minister and Her Majesty's Government that this is most definitely not how the matter is seen by the majority of people of Northern Ireland—not just the DUP but across the broader unionist community. Distrust of the republican movement—Sinn Fein and its IRA associates—remains widespread and deep.
	Of course, a great deal of progress has been made over the past year. This was acknowledged by the DUP deputy leader, Peter Robinson, in an important speech to the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body in Killarney last week. The IRA's statement last July formally ending its armed campaign was hugely significant and welcome, as, I believe, was the act of decommissioning that took place in September. Gerry Adams has made it clear that the "war"—in the sense of seeking to achieve a united Ireland through violence—is over. The Independent Monitoring Commission's Tenth Report was published on Wednesday. Again, many of its conclusions were encouraging—a sign that republicans are moving in the right direction.
	But, for many people in Northern Ireland the question marks remain. There is the legacy of 30 years of appalling and savage terrorism. Anyone who lives in Northern Ireland knows somebody or a family, from both the unionist and nationalist traditions, that has been affected by or suffered from IRA terrorism. So let us not underestimate what we are asking unionists in Northern Ireland to do when we ask them to enter government with Sinn Fein. And we should not be surprised if the community is hardly falling over itself to embrace Sinn Fein simply on the basis of one IMC report—welcome as it is—that gives the IRA a cleaner, though by no means a completely clean, bill of health.
	Just before Easter the Garda intercepted a lorry carrying €300,000 of stolen vodka and three known members of the IRA were arrested, one of whom was released early under the terms of the Belfast agreement. This prompted the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland to assert:
	"As long as the IRA continues to exist and the IRA constitution continues to be treasonable and subversive then problems will continue to remain".
	We agree with that assessment.
	Both the IMC and the Secretary of State indicate that in recent months the IRA has sought to prevent its members engaging in illegal activities. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said that the IRA is "cracking down" on members—whatever that means in practice. It used to mean knee-capping and worse. So we are right to be hopeful but, at the same time, cautious.
	Then there is the issue of policing. Sinn Fein still refuses to support the PSNI. In the words of the IMC, this is,
	"still very controversial on the ground and has not been resolved to date within PIRA despite robust discussion".
	To my mind it is simply inconceivable that a party can take up seats in any devolved government in the United Kingdom without supporting the police, the courts and the rule of law. So Her Majesty's Government must accept that this issue has to be resolved before an executive can be formed. Without it, any chance of meeting the November deadline will be very small indeed.
	There is, of course, a simple test of whether the Government now accept the republican movement's bona fides. If they believe that the IRA is permanently and irreversibly committed to peaceful and democratic means then presumably there is no longer any justification for IRA membership being a criminal offence. If the IRA no longer represents a terrorist threat, then presumably the Government will remove it from the list of terrorist organisations in Schedule 1 to the Terrorism Act. Would it not look rather odd in November to ask unionists to form a government with Sinn Fein, when that party remains inextricably linked to an organisation that is still proscribed under the Terrorism Act?
	Looking ahead to the recall of the Assembly itself, the Government have said that it will be able to debate the issues likely to face an incoming executive, such as education and local government reform. The Secretary of State in the other place pledged to take the Assembly's views into account. Surely, the Government should go further than that. My honorable friend David Lidington, the Shadow Secretary of State in the other place, suggested at the weekend that the Government should have a freeze on such controversial pieces of legislation until after the 24 November deadline, or at least until such time as it becomes clear whether or not an executive will be formed. Will the Minister look seriously at that suggestion? It would be a travesty if the Assembly came to an agreement on issues in the coming weeks only for the Government to ride roughshod over its views.
	In the sad event of devolution not being possible by 24 November—I have asked this question before and have had a satisfactory answer but I will ask it once more—will the noble Lord reaffirm that plan B does not involve any move towards joint authority between London and Dublin over Northern Ireland? Welcome as co-operation on a range of matters is between two states that share a common land border, the internal governance of Northern Ireland is and will remain a matter for Her Majesty's Government alone, accountable to this Parliament. That is a very important message to reiterate across the country and particulary the Province.
	We have come a long way in Northern Ireland over the past 15 years. For most people, life has improved immeasurably and I readily acknowledge that. I want nothing less than for Northern Ireland to be a peaceful, stable and prosperous part of the United Kingdom. We still have some way to go, however, and we should be in no doubt about that. We wish the Government well but are clear that devolution on an inclusive basis will happen only when all parties seeking ministerial positions subscribe to the same democratic values. It is against this background that my party shall support the Bill before your Lordships' House this afternoon.

Lord Laird: My Lords, I would like to join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for outlining the purpose of the Northern Ireland Bill. Also, in common with many other interested people in the Province, I welcome the fact that the Government have taken an initiative. The Assembly's existence must be brought to a head and decisions taken. I note with alarm the attempt to put pressure on the unionist MLAs of all types to take part in the creation of an executive; I am concerned that this shows a mindset which is unhelpful to the proposed process.
	I live in Northern Ireland and have done all my life. I acknowledge that over the past 10 years much has changed for the good. Belfast is a beautiful and now prosperous city. The vast bulk of civil unrest is a thing of the past—thank goodness. Naturally, some difficulties still exist and could cause major problems. The advent of Sinn Fein/IRA's big time criminality must be addressed with vigour if the unionist community is to have enough confidence to accept Sinn Fein in government and so make this Bill worth while.
	However, the activity of last weekend in South Armagh is exactly the type of event to damage such confidence. I am informed by reliable sources that republican terrorist Dessie O'Hare, known as the Border Fox, was back in South Armagh for the first time in many years. O'Hare is believed to be responsible, over recent decades, for some of the cruellest murders. The security forces believe that he may be responsible for up to 30 brutal murders. On Saturday, the police visited his home, where I believe he was at that time. They failed to arrest this most wanted of terrorists. If the Northern Ireland Bill is to have any chance of success, side deals, or anything that looks like a side deal, with Sinn Fein/IRA must not happen.
	The on-the-run legislation of earlier this year was rejected by most people but if wanted terrorists are allowed back into Northern Ireland and cannot be made accountable to the law in any form, the position has become very serious. Among his many brutal murders, the Border Fox killed a young mother, Margaret Hearst, and then opened fire on her small baby. He killed an 80 year-old pensioner in Markethill and, on a Sunday night, slaughtered three elders of Darkley Church inside that church after the evening service.
	The Home Secretary is in trouble for releasing potential criminals back into the community, but here is a case where O'Hare boasts of his crimes and his whereabouts are known. On whose authority were the police unable to arrest him and was that after another deal with republicans? How must the decent people of South Armagh, let alone the relations of those murdered, feel to have the Border Fox back in the area. Compared with Charles Clarke's misjudgements, this is much, much more serious and it demands an answer from the Government. Media sources say that a major homecoming party is to be organised. I assume that the security forces will require him to help with their inquiries before that. Loyalist human rights activist, Willie Frazer of FAIR has, this morning, lodged a complaint with the police ombudsman concerning possible neglect of duty.
	When or if this Bill progresses, I will be putting down an amendment at the next stage concerning the existence of the cross-border bodies and related activities if the Assembly is no more after 24 November 2006. Many noble Lords will know that I have taken an interest in the implementation bodies because of the callous, one-sided way in which I was treated while, for four-and-a-half years, a chairman of one. In general terms, the cross-border bodies have not, by any standards, been a success. Vast sums have been spent on their creation for political purposes, yet the only advance seems to be that of the low standards of Irish governance into a part of the United Kingdom. When I inquire from former senior civil servants why HMG seem to have no control over these bodies, I am told that the instructions are to do what the Irish want. These are not bodies of equal status and I wonder why. I will return to this topic on another day. I support the general thrust of the Bill.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I think the Government have this Bill just right. I congratulate them on it. In this week of all weeks, I suppose praise of that kind is welcome from whatever source. I welcome my noble friend's statement about a clear deadline in November and that there would be no slippage from that. Again, Northern Ireland has a history of deadlines not being met or adhered to; therefore, it is particularly welcome that the Government will stick by this deadline absolutely.
	It is obvious that there is still too high a level of criminality in Northern Ireland. However, I am not convinced that the leadership of the paramilitaries, be they republican or loyalist, are in complete control of some of their members. That does not make criminality any the less to be condemned, but it does mean that in deciding whether the loyalists and, above all, the republicans, are trying to adhere to the peace process as it should be, we must take into account that keeping control of members of paramilitary groups low down the line may not always be possible, no matter how hard the leadership tries to make that happen. That does not excuse criminality, but it means that we need to put it in perspective in trying to judge what is to happen by next November.
	Sinn Fein must join the police—that is to say, of course it must take part in the PSNI boards. I believe that, in the fullness of time, Sinn Fein will do so. The party has dropped hints to that effect. But I also believe that the fullness of time may be too late for this process. I very much hope that Sinn Fein will move more rapidly to do what it knows it must. Sinn Fein has its eyes on the Irish elections, which will take place in spring next year, and its position would be much strengthened in those elections in the Republic if it were to sign up to the police in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein knows that. What happens to it in the Irish elections is no direct concern of ours, but its joining the police, or taking part in the police institutions, is a concern of ours and I very much hope that it will move forward.
	Along with other Members of this House, I was at the most recent meeting of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body last week. We heard a very interesting presentation by some of the leading members of the DUP. I went away moderately encouraged about where they were seeking to go and the part that they would play. But there will still have to be movement if anything is to happen by November.
	Short Bills require short speeches. I intend to adhere to that rule. I want to say something about strands 2 and 3—that is to say, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council. They are not directly covered in the Bill, but the Secretary of State has referred to them. Those bodies would benefit from an element of openness and transparency. I appreciate that they are more in keeping with being elements of a cabinet than of a legislature. Nevertheless, the decisions that they make are important. They will be important if, as we all hope, the Assembly is restored and the institutions are up and running by November, if not before that. If the worst were to happen and that is not the case, it will be even more important that there is transparency in the proceedings of those two bodies. I hope that that will be possible.
	I wish the Government and the parties in Northern Ireland good luck. I very much hope that before we debate Northern Ireland too many more times, the Assembly will be restored, there will be a functioning Executive and we can settle back to other matters of concern.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I begin by offering the Minister and the whole House my deep apologies. I do not know how I came to be late and I am very sorry. I must further apologise for the fact that I shall not be very brief.
	I have four concerns. One is that of education. Martin McGuinness's last act as Minister was to announce the intended abolition of selection in Northern Ireland schools and the replacement of the grammar schools by comprehensives. That was never discussed by the Assembly, because it was then dissolved, but it appears that under devolved government, that policy is to be implemented by HMG under direct rule. Ministers are not waiting for the people to decide through their elected representatives, although the Armagh statement recognises that the Assembly could prepare for government by considering such issues and Ministers:
	"would naturally take account of views which command cross community support within the Assembly".
	How do the Government justify pushing through a measure that was never discussed in the Assembly and which, whatever view they take, is of the deepest concern to all citizens of Northern Ireland? In six months at the latest, we shall know whether the Assembly is going to work and devolved government begin. Why cannot HMG let the education issue, like many others, wait for those few months, rather than imposing an expensive and divisive policy on which the public have had no voice? Schools in Northern Ireland have been especially successful, both in academic terms—and the country needs research brains for the future—and socially, because they successfully mix all creeds in otherwise divided areas. I understand from the very useful briefings we have received that the Assembly, once it is working again, can change decisions made under direct rule, including decisions that affect local government and education. It seems, therefore, both confusing and unnecessary to begin a process of change that the Assembly could well not confirm. In his statement on 6 April, the Prime Minister said:
	"In Northern Ireland crucial decisions will be taken on the economy, health, schools and local government. Is it not more sensible that they be taken by the directly elected representatives of the people those decisions will affect, not by Direct Rule?".
	I hope that Her Majesty's Government will stand by that approach, which of course puts the onus on the parties to agree to make the Assembly work, which is much to be desired.
	The second issue is the deals which the two governments are likely to make with the various parties to persuade them, for perfectly respectable reasons, to abandon entrenched positions and to work together to make the Assembly viable. There must be no more deals like the infamous agreement made with Sinn Fein/IRA on on-the-runs, which was rightly summarily rejected by Parliament. It was particularly shaming, I thought, that the official reason was that it was being withdrawn at the request of Sinn Fein/IRA, which had presumably belatedly realised the effect it was having in the United States.
	I am deeply concerned that more concessions will be made in the field of justice. We know from both the Independent Monitoring Commission—that admirable institution—and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that the Diplock courts currently remain the only way in which the threat to juries and witnesses can be prevented from denying justice. The intimidators have not gone away. Only last year, Gerry Adams reiterated Sinn Fein's refusal to recognise British courts and the UK's criminal justice system. The McCartney case has still not come to court, and Sinn Fein/IRA's solution to that was to offer to kill—no doubt they said execute—the IRA men who killed him. Gerry Adams told the people of Omagh that, although PIRA was not responsible for that bomb, it would not allow witnesses to testify in court because Sinn Fein/IRA did not recognise British justice. He reiterated that statement in my presence last year, describing British justice as an oxymoron—he has become very grand in his language.
	Sinn Fein/IRA have, however, a new mantra, which must not be allowed to pass for a change of heart. Martin McGuiness is quoted in the 10th report of the Independent Monitoring Commission as undeservedly condemning a robbery of a consignment of spirits in March. He said:
	"Anyone involved in activity of this nature, no matter what political party they support, needs to be arrested, charged and brought to court before a jury of their peers".
	That does not mean that Sinn Fein/IRA recognise British courts. A "jury of their peers" is a splendid phrase which either means a Sinn Fein/IRA-constituted and approved body—I have a feeling that jury selection would be on a very special basis—or is designed simply to end the Diplock courts, which sit without a jury for reasons we all know.
	Sinn Fein/IRA's attitude to British justice must be measured by their sabotage of the McCartney trial and the Omagh process, and by their shooting of one of the first young Catholic graduates entering the police as a result of the Patten reforms. Asked then what the attitude of Sinn Fein/IRA would be to the new PSNI intake, Gerry Adams replied that it would be unchanged. I cannot emphasise too strongly what a betrayal of the people of Northern Ireland it would be if we allowed Sinn Fein/IRA to join the police board and have access to and influence over police operations in the forlorn hope that they would not use that to pervert the course of justice. It is endemic in the thinking of Sinn Fein/IRA to wish to achieve absolute control of the organs of power. There must be no deals that weaken and undermine the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach would never agree to similar concessions and the ceding of power in the Irish justice system, and I suggest that the Irish are not yet ready to abandon their parallel court.
	We well know that, from ballot-rigging to organised crime, Sinn Fein/IRA have a damning record of operating outside the law to achieve their political ends. It is worth remembering, however, that the Independent Monitoring Commission continues to report on and express concern about so-called dissident groups. Continuity IRA is still active; it is still recruiting, still training and targeting the police and the military, still intimidating and still committed to terrorism. The same is true of INLA and RIRA. The Army Council of the IRA would never tolerate a truly independent dissident organisation. It would be a sign of weakness, and members of the PIRA are nothing if not control freaks. These so-called dissidents were a familiar feature of underground communist movements in Europe—easily disavowed, but both tolerated and directed.
	CIRA, RIRA, INLA and the rest have certainly benefited from PIRA resources in terms of money and lucrative criminal activity, and they remain a terrorist threat. On the mainland, they would be so regarded if they were, for instance, splinter groups of militant Islamic bodies. Terrorism has not gone away from Northern Ireland yet; it is merely that, for the present, PIRA can, through the use of large sums of money, vote-rigging, organised crime and intimidation, continue to manipulate the republican community fairly extensively, while leaving the business of recruiting and paramilitary training to the so-called dissident groups. The murder of Dennis Donaldson could safely be left to them by PIRA. Violence remains a part of the culture of republicanism. My fear is that almost any concession in the field of criminal justice may be made too soon to secure devolution. The people of Northern Ireland are British, and they have a right to live under the same criminal justice system as all other citizens.
	My final concern is exiles, which the Monitoring Commission's 10th report puts high on the agenda, as they should always have been. The paramilitaries exercise control through fear and the threat of exiling. This has continued this year, and it is not just the innocent exiles whose lives are ruined. As the commission says, others live their lives in fear, and the paramilitaries continue to usurp the role of the police and the courts in exercising their version of community discipline, which is sometimes, as the commission says, quite wrongly called an unofficial justice system. Unless Sinn Fein/IRA, and all paramilitaries of all persuasions, can be made to bring this practice to a complete end, their control over those paramilitaries, whose activities in funding them are no doubt valuable to them, must be in question. The commission states:
	"Only when a group has both ended this practice of exiling and has allowed those it had previously exiled freely to return can it be said to have given up illegal activity in this regard".
	The present position is that the McCartney family have been driven from their homes and there is no freedom for exiles to return. When Martin McGuinness was asked about exiles two years ago, he replied that they could never come back as it was not in the interests of the community. These people had committed no crime in the eyes of the law. Until that position changes, there can be no question of regarding Sinn Fein/IRA as a party which obeys the law and respects human rights. I hope that we will give full credit to the police, and their manifest, growing success in gaining the trust of formerly alienated communities. That must not be jeopardised by letting the wolf into the fold.
	It is salutary to compare the £28 million committed as of 2005 to working with victims and survivors with more than £155 million which has been spent so far on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. I hope that the Government have established the post of a victims and survivors commissioner, as they told the Northern Ireland Committee that they intended to, and that his or her remit will cover the shocking absence of all help for those exiled by the paramilitaries.
	I am sure that good things will come of this Bill, but we must continue to be extremely wary. We must remember that we need to support the forces of law and order for the sake of all the people.

Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I will be relatively brief since most of what I was going to say has already been said. Like everyone else, I welcome the Bill. We really want to see an Assembly back in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Government on their efforts at achieving that during the past few years and on bringing this Bill forward.
	There has been great progress, but this Bill's success in re-establishing the Assembly depends on Sinn Fein's accepting the police and on its involvement or otherwise in criminality, on which I shall concentrate. The success of the Bill depends most of all on the way in which the Government acknowledge and play with their knowledge of criminality. The Government have cherry-picked successive reports on it. For instance, as Mr Hain said, the report states that,
	"we have found signs that PIRA continues to seek to stop criminal activity by its members".
	I totally back the IMC—it has done an amazing job, which when it first came into existence we thought it could not do. However, what I do not understand why, when we were talking about the decommissioning of weapons, it all had to be done in secret, but here we are just told that there are "signs" and the Government cannot even tell us what "signs" the IRA-Sinn Fein leadership is using to reduce the criminality.
	My information is that within IRA ranks the "signs" are much more words than any real action. As we have already heard, Gerry Adams has said that those who are caught should be taken to court and suffer the rigours of the law. What I have heard—which is fairly sound—is that it is being said in general, "If you go about in a criminal manner, and you are caught, you are on your own". That is very different from what we would like to expect from the leadership trying to dissuade people from taking part in crime. The same paragraph of the report said:
	"We believe that some senior PIRA members may be playing a key role".
	First, "some" and "may be" are somewhat indefinite. Secondly, if you go back a little, the report states:
	"Some members, including some senior ones, are still involved".
	There is a contradiction, not in what the IMC says, but how the Government interpret what comes out of it. I think that they should more readily accept what is obvious in the report to anybody who understands the English. They would gain more credibility.
	Along with that go such actions by the Government as those on 16 January when the Policing Board—I am no longer on it—had a confidential meeting. It did not remain confidential for longer than about five minutes, so I can say something about it. The confidential meeting was with the police, with all the crime agencies, the NIO and so forth. This statement appeared in the press afterwards:
	"Ulster's top detective told Policing Board members yesterday that the IRA was still engaged in organised crime".
	The NIO Minister who maintains that the IRA is inactive sat just a few feet away from me. Security Minister Shaun Woodward, who has stated publicly that he believes that the IRA is keeping to its word over criminality, was at the confidential briefing. This is a serious own goal.
	However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned in his speech, sadly, we must accept that certain things are still going on. I believe that the Government are failing themselves and us, and losing credibility, by not accepting that, while pushing Sinn Fein to take action—while pushing forward with this Bill, which I am wholly behind.
	I am not trying to say that just because of this criminality the Bill should not go forward. We will not get rid of all criminality and, secondly, it will be a slow reduction. I accept that, but I think that the Government's angle is simply not credible among people in Northern Ireland. In fact, it gives far too much ammunition to a particular political party.
	I am not going to go through the figures for criminality and organised crime. Suffice it to say that counterfeiting alone is worth £140 million, which is £80 for every single person—baby, child, woman—in Northern Ireland. It is very big.
	If the Government are to say—I have heard them say it—that there is a reduction in criminality and organised crime, perhaps they would like to tell us how much the reduction is due to the IRA leadership. I will tell you: it is a nice, round zero. The reduction has taken place because of the security forces and of Customs and Excise on both sides of the border. You cannot honestly believe that the Sinn Fein/IRA leadership delivered "Slab" Murphy on a plate the other day. No—and it has not delivered anything else.
	Again, I am not saying that this is not a good Bill and that it should wait for these matters to be resolved, but if the Government stood up and said this kind of thing in Northern Ireland, they would gain a great deal more credibility than they have at the moment. This is very important. For opinions to change, we have to have a great deal more trust in the Government and a belief that they understand our position on this. I plead with the Government to do more to gain our respect. In saying that, I greatly support the Bill—it is tremendous that we have reached this stage—but let us have a bit of reality from the Government, not bluff from beginning to end.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the speeches that have been made. I do not think your Lordships would expect me on Second Reading to answer all the detailed points that have been raised—amendments will be brought forward and some have already been tabled—but I repeat my offer that if noble Lords have views that they wish to express by way of an amendment but are not clear about how to do so, they should contact the Northern Ireland Office and we will do our best to advise them. We shall try to be positive because I realise that time is short. I am grateful for the unanimous support for the Bill and for this attempt at devolution.
	A number of noble Lords made the same points and I shall try not to be repetitive. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, made a point that I could be accused of glossing over in my speech because it was contained in one sentence—that is, that there is still a lack of trust. I accept that. Trust has got to be built. It will be better built by people sitting around the table talking to each other, rather than by bellowing megaphone diplomacy through the media. But we have to be realistic—there is a lack of trust—and it is for Sinn Fein to do what it can to build trust with the unionists, and vice versa.
	As to the point about police support, which permeated many of the speeches—this is not a cop out on my part; I said this the last time the point was raised—the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which deals, among other things, with the devolution of the police and aspects of the criminal justice system at an appropriate time, is wending its way through Westminster. This Bill will afford us an opportunity to debate the issue in some detail. It has not yet completed all its stages in the other place but, even if we do not complete it, it will arrive in this place before the Summer Recess. Support for the police is crucial. I have made it clear that if you do not support the police it means that you are on the side of the criminals, the muggers and the rapists. That applies to everyone.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me to reaffirm that there is to be no joint authority in plan B. I reaffirm exactly what I said when I answered the statement raised by many noble Lords. We will co-operate with the south where there are good grounds to do so—I have given examples such as the land border and the crucial issue of animal disease control—but, nevertheless, there will be no joint authority. This is UK territory and is under our sovereignty. It is the responsibility of the Government and we are not going to walk away from it. It is important that, where we can, we should have good co-operation with the south, but plan B does not mean joint authority. I cannot put it any clearer than that.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, also asked me, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, about putting this on hold. I, too, saw Mr Lidington's comments over the weekend, but we are not going to do that. I reaffirm what I have already said: the longer we are there, the faster we will carry out the reform programme. As I have said, if Northern Ireland politicians really want to pull a fast one on direct rule Ministers—although we are not in competition—we will be happy for devolution to take place at the end of this month. We do not envisage that happening—but it can do and we hope that it will do. Certainly it would interfere with our process of reform, but it would be their choice. If the politicians want to do it that quickly, that is their choice. We are not stopping them. We will walk away. Our success is measured by how fast we are out of direct rule—I make no bones about that. But we will not put it on hold because we are not going to live on a wing and a prayer. There is a reform programme that we think the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have a share of, and we are not going to hold it back for all sorts of procrastinations.
	I have no knowledge, seen no paperwork and been party to no conversations about secret deals with anybody. Everything is upfront—what you see is what you get. I understand what has happened in the past; I understand the suspicion. I invite the House—indeed, I invite all democrats—to be sceptical about everything, to be alert and to question the role of government and the political parties. But I say that only in the knowledge that I know of no plans for any secret deals. I would do the same myself if I were a Back-Bencher—indeed, as a Minister. I will not be put in a position of defending issues agreed by secret deals. There aren't any; I can reassure the House that I know of none whatever.
	On criminality and the overall issue of members of the IRA being involved in criminality, we have heard what the leadership and the IMC have said. That does not alter the actions of individuals. Whether they would do it with a nod and a wink, I do not know, but the forces of law and order, both sides of the border, are beginning to squeeze. I am not arguing about who is responsible for this and gets the credit. As a former Home Office Minister, I was responsible for taking through this House the Bill establishing the Assets Recovery Agency. I remember saying that it would be one of the most powerful public bodies in the country when it got going. The squeeze is beginning, and it is all part of that process.
	The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, also mentioned the fear of secret deals. I respect his point but think that I have answered it. He made a wholly valid point, which I have no doubt we will discuss in more detail next Monday, about the Standing Orders. They are drafts and are being discussed at the moment. By the time we reach the Bill's further stages on Monday, things may be somewhat clearer. Under the 1998 legislation, for the purposes of the d'Hondt mechanism, the parties' strength was measured on the first day of meeting after an election. This is an Assembly—somebody wanted to call it a forum—although it is not the power-sharing Assembly. But 15 May will be the first meeting of those 108 Members after an election. Even I was surprised to find out, because I was not involved at the time, that the election took place while the Assembly was suspended. As these are draft Standing Orders, discussions are taking place on them, which I think is important.
	I cannot comment on the individual matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laird; I am not briefed on them and it would probably not be right to do it anyway. However, even with the Assets Recovery Agency, the police and criminal justice process is proceeding. The "on the runs" legislation is not a runner; the police are best placed to make the best decisions in the light of the circumstances and the evidence and information they have.
	The noble Lord, Lord Laird, is quite right about the cross-border bodies. There will probably be a greater spotlight on their role, but they are set up for a reason. They will not become part of a joint authority but we will pursue the issue where we can in co-operation with the south.
	I am very grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Dubs. He was not the only person to mention the recent British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body meeting, at which I was not present, and the positive approach taken by some DUP delegates in their questions and statements. I have read press reports of this and have seen people comment quite positively, which is a very good sign. I take his point about openness and transparency being needed with regard to the north/south bodies and the British-Irish Council. It is not always possible, but there should be as much openness as possible. We are moving into a new era with devolution. I am assuming that this time it will be successful. We will work for success. Our plan is that devolution will be for ever. We should not consider being negative about this. Therefore, as time passes, the nature of government in Northern Ireland—the Assembly and the co-operation between north and south—can be taken to far better heights democratically than now.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, need never apologise to me—unless she apologises to the House—for turning up late and missing all my speech. That is not a criticism. She made a fair point although I will no go down the route of discussing what happened with the communists of Eastern Europe and Islamic terrorists in the context of where we are today. I admit that we need replacements for the Diplock courts. I said when we passed the legislation on the extension to the Terrorism Bill, that we would have to come forward with replacements of the Diplock courts. That is crucial. She also raised the question of deals between other parties, even with the two Governments. I know of none. There are none planned and—I repeat—I have not been party to any conversation, overheard anything or seen any paperwork whatever in that respect.
	The noble Baroness was rather pushy about education. In a way, I take her point. She will soon have plenty of opportunity to discuss it. An order will come before the House in due course—not too far away; perhaps at the end of the month and certainly before the summer—on education, so we can have a one-off debate on that. It has to go through both Houses before it is approved. I have a note here about what we plan to lay before Parliament. In respect of education, we intend to implement the proposals for a revised curriculum arising from the Costello report and some minor amendments to education orders. The impact of any delay until November—effectively what the noble Baroness was asking for—would mean that planned changes to the curriculum giving pupils access to a more relevant curriculum due to come into force from September 2006 would be delayed a year. The statutory basis for ending selection and the introduction of curriculum entitlement framework delay is creating further uncertainty about new post-primary arrangements. However, as I said, an order will soon be going through Parliament and we can have a full and targeted debate because I will invite the House to approve the order.
	The longer we are there, the faster we will take the reform and the parties there know what they need to do to take control of the agenda. We are not standing in their way. If they want to come before the end of May, we will willingly step aside.
	I am grateful that the noble Viscount welcomed the Bill. The points that he made are legitimate. We are not talking up some aspects of the IMC report. There will always be allegations of spin. Nobody is saying that the position is perfect, but if we wait for that we will wait for ever. As I said in my introductory speech, people do not have to agree with each other. They do not have to agree with anything anyone says, but that does not have to stop them talking to each other. The best place for that is in the Assembly around the power-sharing executive table.
	As the noble Viscount said, there probably will be a slower reduction in crime. Nothing will stop overnight—nobody ever expected that. Some aspects are continuing. The IMC will talk about signs. However, the language used is carefully chosen and has to be sensitive. I would be reluctant to comment in detail about this. As a government, our task is to get all parties to the table.
	Our prime task as the Government is to get the Assembly and the power-sharing executive up and running, and to get them to the table in the spirit that each of them has gained something, that each of them feels they have had some success. The language of victory and defeat is in the past. They should all feel that they have gone to the table and achieved some success for those whom they represent. If they can all feel that, we have a really good foundation on which to build a far more peaceful, successful and prosperous Northern Ireland. That is where we start with the Bill.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on that latter point, all I have to go on is my constant clicking on to the BBC Northern Ireland website every hour, because that is they way one tries to keep up to date. That is not a criticism of my office, by the way. I have nothing to add to what I have seen on there. I have had no briefing, though I will get further information for next week.
	I could stand corrected, but, as I understand it, Members of the Assembly will have been invited some days beforehand to turn up on 15 May to register as an MLA and register their position in the party. I fully accept that there have been slight changes. However, I repeat what I said: the standing orders are in draft form, and they are being discussed at present. I hope to be back next Monday with a firmer answer. Let's face it, I had better be: it is 8 May next Monday and the 15th the Monday after, so people need to know where they stand. Within a couple of days of next Monday, the MLAs will receive the invitation to turn up the following week. They will be given around three days' notice. Indeed, we are hoping to secure Royal Assent for the Bill at the close of Business next Monday.
	I hope to have a firmer answer to what is quite a legitimate question. Obviously, operating d'Hondt is pretty crucial when you are dealing with some of those marginal numbers with the 11 ministries that were set up to reflect the party structure. There has been some doubt about that, but I hope to have specific answers by next Monday following discussions that are taking place in Belfast between now and then.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have spoken. I feel very much like a newcomer to this debate. I can see that the noble Baronesses had hours of fun at every stage of the Housing Bill. I will try hard to answer the questions that have been posed. I hope that previous speakers will forgive me for using a rather long speaking note for this debate because it is important to get this on the record. A useful opportunity has been created by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and I want to thank all the noble Baronesses for their detailed support in principle. There has been a great deal of common ground. I wish to spell out why we believe it is essential to give local authorities these powers. I will come in due course to the business of guidance, monitoring and relative preparedness.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said it all when she described the impact that empty homes can have. Not only are they unsightly and unattractive, but they can and do become a playground for anti-social behaviour—everything from squatting and graffiti to vandalism, drug dealing and arson. Bringing such properties back into use is in the interest of the owners as much as of the communities and, of course, it makes more stock available to meet housing need.
	It is terribly important that we should support the good neighbour, too. When we have situations that compromise the pride that people take in their homes and their neighbourhoods, we should do something about it. I see almost daily examples in correspondence of the ways in which people's lives are changed by bad neighbours and of the impact of empty and badly maintained property. It is terrible to live with such situations, which are very frustrating and a great worry. If you have an empty home next door that might be broken into and vandalised, that is a constant preoccupation, apart from the impact on the value of your property.
	Many people feel trapped and helpless about doing anything. They turn to the local authority in the expectation that it can do something, but the local authority may find it difficult to sort out the situation, for reasons that the noble Baronesses will know. The owner may be unwilling to co-operate or they may not be easily traced—in some instances, they may have disappeared. The only available powers that the local authority may have are those under the Environmental Protection Act to deal with nuisance, such as limited powers for clearing rubbish away.
	One or two empty properties is bad enough, but when you have whole streets of houses that have become derelict, there is a culture of underinvestment, which is extremely negative, and a spiral of decline. Previous to the introduction of EDMOs, local authorities had the power to embark on compulsory purchase proceedings, but those were complicated, time-consuming and prohibitively expensive, and not many orders were ever used. Language is very important here. We think that compulsory purchase is not always the most effective means of addressing the fundamental issue, which is certainly not confiscation, as the noble Baroness termed it. The fundamental issue is occupation, rather than ownership. That is what we are talking about and it is where this bites.
	The primary objective was always to give local authorities an effective tool to bring empty homes back into occupation without interfering with ownership. There were a number of things that local authorities could do. For example, they could enter into voluntary leasing arrangements, as some have very successfully done. Some local authorities have been more active than others on this. However, those arrangements can work effectively only where there is a credible threat of compulsion to back them up. The intention was that the availability of EDMOs would give local authorities more scope to reach agreement with owners on how to get their properties back into use.
	We consider that the core of the way forward for local authorities is agreement and negotiation. It is essential for local authorities to work with owners to persuade them of the financial benefits. But where consent cannot be secured, we think that it is reasonable under certain circumstances for local authorities to have powers to bring empty homes back into use without the need to obtain the consent of the owners.
	Let me turn now to the two statutory instruments, which are an important part of the overall legislative package. The Housing (Empty Dwelling Management Orders) (Prescribed Exceptions and Requirements) Order sets out the circumstances in which a local authority is not allowed to make an EDMO and makes further provisions concerning the procedures that it must go through in seeking authorisation to make an interim EDMO. The order comes with two important protections. The Act itself gives the local authority the discretion to make an interim EDMO lasting 12 months against a dwelling that has been unoccupied for a period of at least six months where voluntary approaches have been exhausted. It is very important to stress that. We also accept that there are many valid circumstances in which it is acceptable for dwellings to be unoccupied for periods in excess of six months at a time. Secondly, the local authority must, before making an application to a residential property tribunal, have properly considered non-statutory measures to secure occupation.
	There is a six-month general exception period—I will now start answering some of the questions that the noble Baroness put to me. The Act provides that a dwelling must be wholly unoccupied for at least six months, or longer as may be prescribed, before an interim EDMO can be made. The noble Baroness asked: how do our local authorities will get through the information barrier, how will they identify property and when does the six months count from? They are already identifying empty homes in a number of ways. It includes information from council tax but it also includes the sort of information that local authorities are gathering as they look at their housing market needs and at the state of the environmental needs of the neighbourhood. Some information comes on a personal level, from neighbours for example. Some comes from more systematic surveys of the needs of stock and the people on the waiting list and the attendant information that comes from that.
	The six months starts from when the local authority identifies the property to be vacant. That could be months after it has been vacant, so it can be quite notional. After the consultation period we have agreed not to extend that six months, not only because there is an in-built delay, as I have just described, but to extend it would simply have introduced further delays. When lines are drawn in legislation, anomalies are nearly always created. So whether we had said 12, 24 or even 36 months, it would have been more difficult to administer but also local authorities would have had to have waited much longer to deal with properties.
	These are the earliest times in which an interim EDMO could be made. It does not mean that in every case local authorities would wish to proceed at this point in the vacancy process. These are discretionary orders and it will be for local authorities to judge if and when to make an application to a residential property tribunal. Six months will count from the date on which the local authority can establish the dwelling became unoccupied.
	The order also provides for a whole range of specific exceptions. It is important to run through these because we can put them in order and I can answer some of the questions put to me by the noble Baroness as I go through them. In many cases a property will be excepted indefinitely by virtue of meeting these requirements. What we were mindful of in creating 10 categories is that there had to be a genuine reason for the vacancy. We recognise and accept that in many cases dwellings cannot be occupied all the time and their use is dictated by factors that even the most well intentioned owners cannot control. These 10 categories were generated following extensive consultation. For example, we talked to the representatives of the Country Land and Business Association in relation to agricultural dwellings.
	The first exception covers dwellings normally considered to be the sole or principal residence of the owner, who is absent either because he is residing temporarily elsewhere or, more specifically, because he is being cared for elsewhere—in a care home, for example. The second exception deals with second homes and holiday homes. We recognise that in some cases the six-month exception will not always be long enough to exempt these, particularly where the property is not used during the winter months.
	The third category excepts dwelling that are genuinely on the market—either for sale or for letting. It is an important exception because we are trying to encourage owners to sell properties that they have no plans to re-use. We are satisfied that this does not provide a loophole because the intention to sell will have to be determined by the residential property tribunal.
	The fourth category deals with dwellings comprised within agricultural holdings. The next two categories deal with housing which is conditional on employment and clergy housing, on which there was a surprising amount of consensus in the consultative process.
	The seventh and eighth categories deal specifically with property that cannot in any case be occupied due to the fact that it is the subject of either civil or criminal investigations or proceedings—for example, where assets are frozen in divorce or bankruptcy cases. Their inclusion in the order helps to reinforce the fact that local authorities cannot override judicial proceedings.
	The ninth category excepts dwellings where a mortgage lender has repossessed the property and it is in the interests of lenders to sell or otherwise dispose of such property quickly. Where the properties have previously been empty, this process can obviously take longer than would normally be the case.
	Finally, but certainly not least, the order excepts dwellings where the owner has died. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, this is a very sensitive area and one where it is worth going into a bit more detail. No doubt we have all had experience of someone dying and the home being unoccupied for a period while the estate is transferred. It is a very difficult period, with probate to deal with on top of the loss of the family member. We feel it is important that people are not rushed into making decisions about the possessions of their loved ones until they are ready to do so.
	Many problems caused by empty homes stem from an extended period of vacancy following the death of the previous occupier, so the order prescribes that a dwelling is excepted for six months from the date on which the grant of representation is obtained—that is, from the date of probate. We believe that that is humane and sensible because it is the point at which the estate is transferred and relatives can begin to decide what to do. We have considered complex cases—some of which may be in administration, making probate difficult to obtain—but, even in those cases, again the date of probate will be the effective date. I know that the noble Baroness has had discussions with her colleagues about some of those complexities.
	I also want to touch on two areas where we decided not to make specific exceptions, as these are important, too. The first relates to dwellings that are unoccupied as a result of repairs or improvements, and the second relates to properties where planning or building regulations approval to redevelop is awaited. We consider that such properties should normally fall outside the scope of EDMOs because, in the first case, people are trying to improve the condition and, in the second case, they are dealing with the planning process, and in both instances there is a reasonable chance of the homes being occupied in the near future.
	In terms of the support that we are giving local authorities, technical guidance will be put before them as soon as possible. It will cover these sorts of issues and will assist them through the process of which they will need to be aware. In these cases, we did not prescribe a blanket exception because we thought that that would create a loophole which could prevent a local authority legitimately pursuing cases where the dwelling was not genuinely under repair, or where a planning application was made simply as a way of frustrating the order. The matter will be left to the judgment of local authorities and residential property tribunals, and we believe that that creates sufficient scope to deal with such cases. The exception categories were widely supported during the consultation exercise. Two-thirds of respondents agreed with the exceptions and came forward with additional ones, such as clergy housing and care arrangements. Therefore, it was a very useful exercise.
	I shall now answer some other specific questions before I go on to talk about the regulations and the protections that we are building in. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked who would manage the orders and what types of tenants would be placed in the houses that were freed up. There could be a variety of management arrangements, and it is up to the local authority to decide what is most appropriate. It could be the local authority, an RSL or the private sector. Likewise, the person who is placed in the property has to be agreed with the owner of the property—I shall come on to that. It could be someone on the housing list, a homeless family, a key worker or a private renter under different circumstances. Again, large elements of discretion will be available to local authorities.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked me about the sale of property. The owner of a property has a right to sell at any time—this concerns occupation and not ownership—but to do so he could seek early revocation of the EDMO, if it had gone through, to enable him to sell it. A local authority could revoke an EDMO early if it were satisfied that the owner was serious about selling. If a local authority were to refuse a request to revoke an order early, the owner can appeal to the RPT. A whole series of rights of appeal is built in.
	If the property is occupied by tenants placed by the council, the council cannot revoke the order, unless it simply replaced it with a final EDMO, without the owner's consent. That ensures that owners are not left to manage tenancies that are set up by a local authority. If a local authority wishes to revoke an EDMO in those circumstances, it has either to move the occupants out or to agree with the owner an arrangement to let them stay. A local authority can refuse to revoke an EDMO early if doing so would leave the local authority in debt. Then another arrangement could kick in, whereby the owner agrees to pay the outstanding amount. There is a variety of different processes through which one can go.
	On compensation, because an EDMO is a control on the use of the property rather than deprivation, it does not give rise to an automatic right to compensation. The person against whom the order is made is not entitled to compensation. He would receive any surplus income following deduction of the local authority's relevant expenditure in managing and maintaining the property. There may be more costs involved in managing and maintaining some properties. A third party to an EDMO—a person with an interest in the property who is not the relevant proprietor—could ask a local authority to pay compensation for any interference to his rights as a result of the making of an EDMO, but if that is refused he can go back to the property tribunal and work through that process again. Those are exactly the kind of things that we hope to be able to clarify to local authorities in due course.
	On types of tenancies for an interim EDMO and a final EDMO, to begin with, no tenancy can be granted without the consent of the owner, as I shall explain later. For the final and the interim EDMOs the Act makes it clear that a local authority is not to be treated as the legal owner and it may not sell or charge or make any other disposition of any such estate. The Act does not restrict the type of tenancy to be created, but a local authority will need to protect the interests of the owner, so the type of tenancy or licence would vary. It would have to be one that would enable the property to be vacated on a period of notice served by the local authority. Again, we are building into the flexibility available protection for the owner.
	On monitoring, I have talked about "exceptions". There is scope to except additional circumstances if it is considered necessary. We would do that by monitoring the impact and the operation of the legislation very carefully over the next three years. We are able to make changes to secondary legislation if needed. I believe that the 10 categories that we have identified and prescribed cover most situations. Clearly, we shall be interested in monitoring the operation of the order as a whole.
	The regulations are a little more technical; they deal with supplemental provisions. Where an EDMO or any other type of management order is made on a leasehold property, the local authority is treated, as the Act describes it, as a "lessee" of the property. That is to say the authority will take on certain responsibilities of the leaseholder while the management order is in force. For example, it will be responsible for paying any ground rent or service charges demanded by the freeholder and can challenge the reasonableness of such charges. However, the Act makes it clear that the local authority does not acquire any estate or interest in the property and therefore is not entitled to sell, charge or make any other disposition of the estate or interest.
	When the Bill was passing through this House, the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, rightly pointed out that special consideration should be given to the way in which management orders impact on the rights and responsibilities of leaseholders. We considered his point and the Bill was amended to allow for that.
	The order provides some clarity about the effect of management orders on leasehold properties and the responsibilities taken on by local authorities. The regulations provide that a local authority, having made a management order, must serve notice on the person who granted the lease, detailing the effect of the management order and specifying that any demands for payment of ground rent or service charge should be served on the authority while the management order is in force. Once such notice has been served, any demand for payment of ground rent or service charges must be served on the local authority, which is then under a duty to ensure that these charges are paid on time.
	Other than that, we expect that the existing rights and responsibilities under leasehold arrangements will continue as they would otherwise, despite the existence of a management order. The regulations do not impinge on the ownership of leases and do not prevent leaseholders from exercising their rights—such as to extend their lease or to buy the freehold.
	Before I wind up by listing the protections built in, I return to the question of how prepared local authorities are. We talked briefly about the experience of local authorities in voluntary leasing arrangements. We are aware that this is a new departure. The Local Government Agency and the Empty Homes Agency are to undertake a series of training events for local authority officers on the approaches to using EDMOs. Incidentally, we are very grateful to the Empty Homes Agency for the excellent work that it has done over the years and for the role of the noble Baroness in it. Those are likely to begin in June, prior to commencement of the tribunal approval regime on 6 July. We think that most local authorities will want time to consider the powers properly before proceeding. As the power is discretionary, they do not have to swing into action until they feel that they are properly prepared. I am sure that those training events will be of great help to them.
	It is obviously important to get beyond the headlines about homes being seized by overzealous councils. I was grateful for the warm support and the long history of the noble Baronesses in enabling that. It is important to remind ourselves that the provisions, coupled with the secondary legislation, will ensure that EDMOs are made only where there is no alternative.
	Perhaps I may very briefly outline how the rights of property owners have been positively protected throughout the process. There are comprehensive checks and balances. First, the onus is on the local authority to make reasonable efforts to notify the owner that it is considering making an EDMO. That is nothing to do with the owner, the local authority must do the job itself. Therefore, it must ascertain what is the situation in relation to the dwelling. If the owner has plans to use the dwelling, the local authority may not proceed. Even if a local authority considers that it has grounds to make the order, it must balance the rights of the owner and the interests of the wider community. If there is any doubt that making the order would not serve the wider interest, the authority may not proceed.
	Having ascertained that it would be appropriate to make an interim EDMO, the next step is to make an application to the RPT. The tribunal may authorise the making of an order only if it in turn is satisfied on a number of points, not least those set out in the order. There is a strict series of requirements in the order about the efforts that must have been made to inform the owner, to obtain information and to prove that the information is right.
	First, it must be satisfied that the dwelling has been wholly unoccupied for at least six months. It must consider the exceptions. Even if a dwelling is not excepted, it would not automatically be subject to an interim EDMO. Before authorising an order, the tribunal must first be satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the dwelling becoming occupied in the near future. Moreover, the tribunal will not approve an order if the owner can persuade the tribunal that he intends to occupy or sell the dwelling in the near future. It must also be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of the dwelling becoming occupied if an EDMO is made. That means, in effect, that the local authority must consider the local market conditions and decide whether it could find tenants to occupy it. The tribunal must also be satisfied that the local authority has complied with its duties in making the application. It may not authorise the order if the local authority has not made reasonable efforts to ascertain the owner's intentions. Finally, the tribunal must also balance the interests of the community with the effect of the order on the rights of the owner and others with an interest in the dwelling.
	Once an interim EDMO has been approved, the local authority cannot place tenants in the dwelling without the consent of the owner—an issue that the noble Baroness raised. This provides a final opportunity for an agreement about occupation to be reached that would allow the order to be revoked. Only if the owner refused to give his consent would a local authority be entitled to make a final EDMO. I believe that those procedures, coupled with the rights of appeal and revocation in the legislation, ensure that an EDMO cannot be made for arbitrary reasons; they are a very proportionate response to a very serious problem. Our approach and the wide range of discussions we held in the two consultations exercises on both primary and secondary legislation proved that most consultees overwhelmingly support our proposals.
	I wish I could say something more positive about VAT to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, who made a very warm and gracious speech. We have this exchange about once a fortnight in this House; I am afraid that any further VAT changes would be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make, as the noble Baroness well knows.
	In conclusion, I cannot resist quoting two very supportive statements. One is from the British Property Federation—a very welcome, if not unusual, source. In the Greater London Authority report, Empty Homes in London 2005-6, it said:
	"We support the additional measures being introduced in the 2004 Housing Act. We believe these strike a good balance between the legitimate protection of property rights and tackling the problems of empty property. We hope that in all but a few cases such powers will not need to be used, but they are there if required and collectively during 2006 all of us with an interest in empty homes must educate the wider public about them".
	Amen to that. It continues:
	"There is a lot of misinformation already out there, but contrary to some of the reports in the tabloid press you will not go away on a fortnight's leave and find your local authority has let out your house! What you may find, however, is that through the use of such powers that grotty house at the end of your street with the overgrown garden will slowly return to being an asset to your neighbourhood, rather than a liability. The Federation . . . looks forward to 2006 with a great deal of optimism. The new powers will provide new opportunities to raise the profile of this important issue".
	The Empty Homes Agency supports this in a different context. It says:
	"We have been promoting the idea of Empty Homes Management Orders for some time . . . With nearly three quarters of a million empty properties in Britain we need a range of measures to bring them back into use. The new measure should encourage owners to bring properties back into use voluntarily, helping to ease the chronic housing shortage. It's a win-win situation for empty property owners who need help to make their assets work for them, and for those in housing need who will have greater choice".
	We estimate that some 1,000 orders will be made each year—three per local authority. I would be surprised if many of those orders proceeded beyond the interim EDMO stage. We will see a cultural change, and a change in attitude and behaviour, as the true impact of the incentives and the opportunities for owners to bring empty homes back into use are seen and appreciated.
	We should all be proud of the measure. It is long overdue but, I think, highly effective. It has been excellent to get the support of parties around the House throughout the passage of the Bill and now in these final stages, so I am grateful to everyone who has spoken this evening.

Motion not moved.
	House adjourned at eighteen minutes before seven o'clock.
	Tuesday, 2 May 2006.